Morrison Itching to Attack Iran

Read and digest this opening paragraph from Peter Hartcher, international editor of the Sydney Morning Herald:

"Iran is far from Australia. Yet if it goes to war with America the consequences could be uncomfortably near." (Acute problem with US-Iran war, 25/6/19)

If IRAN goes to war with America?

Incredibly, what Hartcher is doing here is reversing over a century of US regime change dating back to the overthrow of the Queen of Hawaii in 1893 under US president Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893) (See Stephen Kinzer's Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, 2006, pp 11-30)

Typically, Hartcher's only concern is how this will affect Australia - and who does he cite on this matter? Who else but the former Liberal senator and Australian Army commander responsible for the siege of the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004, major-general Jim Molan:

"We are 90 per cent dependent on imported fuel... and we have only around 23 days' supply in Australia." (ibid)

Moving on, however, Hartcher cannot help but deal with the stark reality of the matter:

"The new US President pulled out of [Obama's] Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)]. He was persuaded by the urgings of US hardliners and by the governments of Iran's biggest foes - its neighbours Israel and Saudi Arabia. These countries want Iran crushed, and they want the Americans to do the crushing for them." (ibid)

Will wonders never cease? Hartcher's got Israel right for once!

Now the Sydney Morning Herald of the same day (25/6/19) carried the following report:

"US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is touring the Middle East and Asia looking to build a global coalition against Iran... not only throughout the Gulf states, but in Asia and in Europe... " (Pompeo seeks anti-Iran coalition, Darlene Superville, AP)

Unsurprisingly, in yesterday's (26/6/19) Sydney Morning Herald, we read that:

"The Morrison government has left the door open to joining a co-ordinated international effort to ratchet up pressure on Iran, saying Australia is 'in consultation with our allies and partners' as tensions rise between Washington and Tehran." (Australia open to anti-Iran push, David Wroe)

Could it be any clearer than this? The United States is gunning for Iran, not, as Hartcher has it, the other way around. And Morrison wants in on the action, just like his Liberal Party predecessor John Howard did in 2003. Incredibly, we have learnt nothing as a nation since then.

The French Report

We've been hearing oodles in Murdoch's Australian, about the Report of the Independent Review of Freedom of Speech in Australian Higher Education Providers, March 2019, drawn up by former Chief Justice of the High Court Robert French, all of it designed to detract from French's key finding here:

"Repeated incidents in Australia in recent times do not establish a systemic pattern of action by higher education providers or student representative bodies, adverse to freedom of speech or intellectual inquiry in the higher education sector."

Instead, The Australian has ignored this key finding and homed in exclusively on French's reference to the adoption of a voluntary free speech code.

According to Sydney University's student paper, honisoit.com:

"Freedom of speech incidents at USyd represent the overwhelming majority of incidents amongst Australian universities if a 2018 audit by the conservative think tank Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), cited in the review, is to be believed."

(Note that the IPA audit was conducted by Matthew Lesh, formerly political affairs director of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS)).

And why has Sydney University, in particular, come under such scrutiny? Sydney University English department academic Nick Riemer here hits the nail squarely on the head with his quoted (in bold) comment in the following Sydney Morning Herald report:

"The John Howard-helmed Ramsey Centre's struggles to find a home for its degree in Western civilisation has prompted many to accuse the campuses of left-wing bias, but one of the most outspoken critics disagrees. Nick Riemer says universities are not full of lefties. 'The faculty that's in focus is the arts faculty,' he says. Claims it is dominated by cultural Marxists are 'nonsense. Most academics there are centrists'. In fact, he argues, his more left-wing colleagues are the ones under most pressure. 'The biggest irony about all of this is the freedom of speech code will I bet not be applied to the group that is most in need of it in my view, which is Palestine advocates,' he says." (Embracing comfortable ideas, Jordan Baker, 22/6/19)

So, absent Sydney University's arts faculty's courageously standing up for Palestinian rights, there would be no particular focus on Sydney University at all, no audit by the IPA's Matthew Lesh, and ultimately no French Report.

As Riemer points out, advocating for Palestine simply cannot be tolerated by the enemies of the Palestinians in this country. It is they, not the campus Zionists, who are in need of the protection of any campus free speech code which may be adopted.

(See, in particular, my 16/9/14 post Behind AUJS's Campus Offensive and remember that 2014 was the year of Israel's most brutal ever onslaught against the Gaza Strip, Operation Protective Edge, which necessitated an unprecedented PR blitz from Israel's propaganda outlets in the West, including Australia. Context is all.)

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

"At least 81 Palestinians were injured on Friday afternoon in clashes [sic] between Palestinian demonstrators and Israeli soldiers in the eastern Gaza Strip, close to the border with Israel, medics said. Ashraf al-Qedra, spokesman for the Gaza Health Ministry, told reporters that 79 people as well as two paramedics had various injuries in clashes [sic] with the Israeli soldiers... " (81 Palestinians injured in clashes with Israeli soldiers in eastern Gaza Strip, xinhuanet.com, 22/6/19)

Harry's Game

Harry Triguboff (like Frank Lowy and the Pratts, father and son) is the Australian equivalent of conspicuous US Zionist billionaire political donors such as Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban*. By way of an introduction to the vital content of this post, the following data has been gleaned from his Wikipedia entry - with some of the limitations one has come to expect from that source:

In 2016, Triguboff was the richest person in Australia, and is currently the third richest. He was born in Dalien, Lianing, in the former Republic of China (1912-1949) after his Russian Jewish parents left Russia in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. In 1947, Triguboff moved to Australia, becoming a citizen in 1961. Just two statements in his Wikipedia entry suggest that he is something more than just a philanthropic billionaire property developer. These read as follows: "Triguboff donates heavily to political parties and uses his influence to seek policy changes."/ "Triguboff, via the Harry Triguboff Foundation , funded a project at the Shorashim Center [in Jerusalem] to assist immigrant applicants to Israel in proving their Jewishness."

Which brings me now to the revealing profile of Triguboff by Tess Durack in the May 29, Murdoch-owned, Wentworth Courier. Titled Top of his game: Harry Triguboff AO, aged 86, is pulling no punches, here are just the plums:

"At the 86th Gala Birthday dinner of Harry Triguboff AO earlier this year, a diverse crowd descended on Darling Harbour's ICC ballroom. Titans of business intersected with Orthodox Jews, tradies and sub-contractors from an array of ethnic backgrounds and families who work for - or whose livelihoods depend on - Triguboff... [T]hey paid tribute to the billionaire property developer whose image was beamed on huge screens... and to raise funds for the hugely successful Our Big Kitchen charity which Triguboff has long backed.

"An introduction from Rabbi Dovid Slavin, founder of Our Big Kitchen, and it was time for the guest of honour to speak. 'I'm very lucky that I found you,' the founder of Meriton [Apartments Pty Ltd] told the crowd of over 200, 'and you are very lucky that you found me!'

"It was a typically candid comment from a man renowned for speaking plainly in a thick Russian accent which lingers despite calling Australia home these past six decades. But even those accustomed to Triguboff's direct conversational style were taken aback by the apparent stream of consciousness that followed that night, as he took aim at national parks and watered-down forms of the Jewish education in a speech that drew an audible gasp or two from some in the crowd.

"'Sydney is a very strange place,' he ruminated. 'The only place in the world where they have so many parks. Everywhere, national parks. They are only good for snakes. No one goes there.' Cue the gasps."

Two months later, Durack was granted an interview by Triguboff which occupies the remainder of her profile:

"In the weeks following the birthday gala he launched legal action against the NSW government - during the thick of its election campaign - over a tower he is building in North Ryde.  Does he feel optimistic about the result? 'Well I have to really belt them up,' he says with that trademark pugnacity. 'It's something that has to be done. Whenever I win a case against council - which is very often - I like it to be of benefit to everyone and if I can win this case, it will be of great benefit.'... I ask him how his day has been. 'My day? Fine! I have no bad days! If somebody is giving me the shits, I knock them out.'

"Annotated financial reports sit on the table in front of him... The space [at Meriton HQ on Kent Street] is filled with Chinese ornaments, signed sports paraphernalia and a stunning indigenous artwork in vivid pinks. I ask him who the artist is. 'I don't know. I don't care,' says Triguboff, his voice gruff and commanding. 'People who know painting - they know who it's by.' [...]

"Later today he will continue a 26-year battle to gain approval to secure a block of land on the northern beaches. Infuriated by the interference of councils, he says too many bad decisions are made because aldermen are worried they'll lose their seats. That he is not worried about such considerations puts him in a good position to win. 'I don't think I well win or lose my seat. I do what I think is right,' The ability to do the right' thing is something he respects and counts Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu and John Howard among those he admires. 'I don't think I like him,' he says of the former, 'but I have to admire him because he did such a good job for the country. And everyone loves John Howard. He will do anything for anyone... without thinking what's in it for himself, he did a good job for the country.' [...]

"I press him on the speech he made in Darling Harbour... Surely he can't mean for us to build on our national parks? 'It's true what I'm saying... Sydney is the only city in Australia where we have so many national parks. The problem is... is that nobody uses them, they are just wild - all that is there are snakes so nobody can go there'."**

[*See my 10/7/15 post Her Master's Voice, on Hillary Clinton's shameless courting of this Zionist mega donor to the Democratic Party;**This attitude of Triguboff's is actually long-standing. See my 28/9/10 post Zionist Chameleon.]

The $3.5m Question

Hmm...

"It has been dubbed Scott Morrison's secret $500,000 fundraising coup - and it happened at billionaire Anthony Pratt's mansion [Raheen in March]... Here's what we missed. [Liberal federal president Nick Greiner made sure to invite Charles Goode, he of the impressive Melbourne Rolodex and also the chair of the Cormack Foundation, the much debated $75 million Liberal-aligned donor. And Greiner - the clever man - made sure Goode was seated next to the Prime Minister. Scomo sure didn't waste the opportunity. We are informed by senior Liberal sources that before the Raheen dinner, the Cormack Foundation - whose board also includes former PM John Howard and fellow grandee Richard Alston - had agreed to donate $3m to the federal party's campaign fund. After Morrison's dinner chat with Goode that amount was increased by $500,000 to a record $3.5m..." (ScoMo's $500,000 booster, Margin Call, Will Glasgow & Christine Lacy, The Australian, 9/5/19)

Remember how, despite former PM Malcolm Turnbull's extensive services to Netanyahu, he had to pay $1.75m of his own money to pay for his 2016 election campaign? (If not, see my 6/3/18 post Poor Old Malcolm.)

Well, what to make of the above? Seems like Anthony Pratt's Raheen was no more than a venue for this fundraiser, and Howard and Alston, like Turnbull before them, are having to dip into their own pockets to fund Morrison's election campaign.

Which has me puzzled: if the Zionist money of yore is no longer forthcoming, then why are these Liberal Party clowns still bending over backwards, foreign policy-wise, for Israel?

Kevin Rudd's 'The PM Years'

It is in the nature of political lobbies to operate behind closed doors, away from the public eye. Australia's Israel (or Zionist) lobby is no exception. In fact, it is probably true to say that most Australians are simply unaware of its existence, let alone its powerful hold over our elected representatives, not to mention its relentless policing of the corporate media. And that lack of awareness, to be sure, is just the way the lobby would have it.

Be that as it may, given the Israel lobby's hugely successful impact on Middle East policy formulation by governments from both sides of the political divide, as well as its equally successful role in shaping and managing mainstream media discourse on the Middle East, any inside account of its modus operandi is more than welcome. Recent memoirs, by former foreign minister Bob Carr, former prime minister Kevin Rudd, and journalists John Lyons and Mike Carlton, have helped expose the lobby's interventions and manipulations in these two key areas. Indeed, judging by their revelations, it could be said that we are approaching critical mass here - to the point where no truly sentient Australian can any longer feign ignorance of either the Israel lobby's existence or its clout.

I've already mined Carr's Diary of a Foreign Minister (2014) and John Lyons' Balcony Over Jerusalem for their insights. As time permits, I'll move on to Carr's Run for Your Life (2018) and Carlton's On Air (2018) in later posts. For now, I'll deal here with Rudd's Kevin Rudd: The PM Years (2018), annotating where necessary:

"Then there was the question of Israel. Back in 2003, under the Howard government, the Israeli intelligence services had taken it into their heads to use forged Australian passports in one of their operations abroad. They had been found out. Dennis Richardson, the director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation at the time, had hauled them over the coals. The Israelis had been forced to sign an agreement with us that if we were to continue intelligence cooperation with them in the future, they would never do this again. Obviously the Israelis had not taken us seriously, because they did it again - this time in a botched intelligence operation which culminated in the assassination of a Hamas leader visiting Dubai. Mossad had left their paw prints all over the operation. The Israeli authorities plainly did not care that by using and abusing Australian passports, they were placing at risk not just the integrity of our passport system but, more importantly, the safety and security of hundreds of thousands of Australians who travelled on these passports through the Middle East each year.

"The matter was brought to the National Security Committee of the cabinet. Dennis Richardson, who had recently been appointed secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs by our government, was an experienced senior diplomat of the old school. His advice to us was unequivocal: unless Australia wished to be seen as a 'soft touch' by the Israelis, we had to act firmly and decisively. We should expel the Mossad representative at the Israeli embassy in Canberra, and make public our reasons for doing so. Only then would it be considered a significant enough issue in Israel to force the political arm of the government to rein Mossad in.

"I looked around the room. Everyone was nodding in agreement - except Julia [Gillard]. I asked her explicitly whether she supported the recommendation. She grunted her assent. I knew for a fact that Julia had been cultivating a close relationship with the Israeli lobby in Australia. There was nothing wrong with that, particularly given her own pro-Palestinian background from her days as a left-wing political activist. I was also conscious that her partner, Tim, had gone to work for a prominent member of the Jewish community in Melbourne. I didn't want any fractures in the government on this one."

Just how close Gillard's relationship with the Israel lobby was is explored in some detail in Carr's Diary of a Foreign Minister. For the details, I refer you in particular to my posts The Carr Diary: Reflections 4, 5 & 6 (18-20/4/14) and my 18/1/13 post The Prime Minister who Put Her Job on the Line for Israel.

With respect to Rudd's assertion that Gillard had a "pro-Palestinian background from her days as a left-wing political activist," he is mistaken. Just the opposite is the case. (See my post 14/8/10 post The Real Julia Gillard.)

"When [foreign minister] Stephen Smith made our position public, the Israeli government was less than impressed. Their ambassador, Yuval Rotem, came in to protest. And that's when the complaints from the Australian Jewish lobby started to come in thick and fast. I had no qualms about saying publicly that the decision by Israeli intelligence services to use and abuse the Australian passport system was not the action of a friendly government. I then said as much to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and I told him I expected him to take action against Mossad.

"Colin Rubenstein, a leading conservative political activist from Sydney, and Mark Leibler from Melbourne went off their heads. How could Australia have the temerity to treat our friend and ally Israel in such cavalier fashion? How could we be certain that Mossad had done this? Surely we were mistaken... And even if Mossad had done it, weren't such things done on a regular basis in the ugly world of intelligence? I was then lobbied by our own Jewish members of parliament, led by Michael Danby and Mark Dreyfus. They came to see me, demanding that I 'do something'. My response was to ask what they would have done if they were either foreign minister or prime minister of a country and another country had forged their passports in order to assassinate someone who at that stage was under the protection of another country (the UAE) with whom Australia also had a close relationship."

Rubenstein is the executive director of Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) and Leibler is its national chairman. AIJAC is based in Melbourne.

"However, out of respect for my parliamentary colleagues, I suggested that we invite leading members of the Jewish community to the Lodge for dinner to discuss the matter further. The dinner was held on 3 June, and I remember the evening well. I sat there politely as Mark Leibler berated me for having committed a hostile act. I found this remarkable as I had been a strong defender of the state of Israel from the earliest days of my diplomatic career and had always been a vigorous campaigner against all forms of anti-Semitism. And for Leibler to attack the democratically elected prime minister of his country as he sought to argue the interests of another country was beyond the pale.

"'You do realise that this is Israel's second offence?' I said. 'What do you mean?' he asked. 'They did exactly the same under Howard, got a gentle rap over the knuckles, and promised never to do it again.' Leibler looked stunned. 'I don't believe you.' 'Then why don't you sit down with the head of Foreign Affairs, who is the former head of ASIO, and I'll authorise him to brief you on exactly what has happened here,' I countered. 'I think you'll find that our response to Israel's actions has been entirely reasonable under the circumstances.'

"Leibler still stared at me in disbelief. And then disbelief turned to anger. Apropos of nothing, he said, 'Julia is looking very good in the public eye these days, Prime Minister. She's performing very strongly. She's a great friend of Israel. But you shouldn't be anxious about her, should you, Prime Minister?' It was Leibler at his menacing worst." (Kevin Rudd: The PM Years, 2018, pp 282-84)

Rudd's dinner at the Lodge is the subject of a most interesting report by Peter Hartcher, the Sydney Morning Herald's international editor, for which see my 22/6/10 post The Best Israel Policy Money Can Buy. See also the account of same in The Australian Jewish News, quoted in my 11/6/10 post Those Irresistable Zionist Pheromones Again 2.

Sadly, "Leibler at his menacing worst" was not the wake-up call that Rudd needed on the matter of Israel, because just over a year later we find him, with Danby, in a Melbourne Max Brenner outlet condemning those advocating its boycott. A more disillusioned Rudd can be seen later in Carr's 2014 Diary of a Foreign Minister, for which see my 20/4/14 post The Carr Diary Reflections 6. Finally, we have the Israel critic of later years, for which see my 23/2/17 post Rudd & Netanyahu Cross Swords, as well as the following  passage from his memoir:

"Elsewhere on the international front there was good news to be had. In October 2012, nearly five years after I had launched the initial campaign, the news finally came through of Australia's extraordinary win for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Gillard was never an enthusiast. Through the influence of her 'Middle East Advisor', Bruce Wolpe, Gillard had already begun unravelling a number of Australian votes on UN General Assembly resolutions on Palestine in order to appease the far-right Jewish lobby in Melbourne. When I was prime minister and foreign minister, Australia's voting profile on Israel had changed from one of unquestioning compliance with US and Israeli interests, to one which was much more aligned with British voting patterns in the UN. Our votes were still more sympathetic to Israel than those of the rest of Europe. But this was not good enough for Gillard. The far-right Jewish lobby in Melbourne wanted to go back to the good old days of the Howard government. And Gillard wanted to deliver. This would be coordinated through her loyal operative Wolpe to ensure that Australia would once again join the likes of the US, Palau and maybe two or three other Pacific micro-states, in voting against UN General Assembly resolutions that were critical of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. It was no surprise that Gillard would later be awarded, together with Abbott, an honorary doctorate at an Israeli university for her services to the cause. The only problem was that these were not services to Australia's cause. They were services to the Israeli Government's cause under prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his total opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state." (pp 508-09)

Of course, Rudd still hasn't broken through his childhood/religious/Labor Party conditioning to arrive at a real understanding of the dark apartheid heart of the Zionist project in Palestine, and probably never will, but at least he's experienced a learning curve of sorts.

Hypocrisy Alert!

Dreg Sheridan, foreign editor of Murdoch's Israelian, currently has his knickers in a knot over the Australian National University and Sydney University's thumbs-down to the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation. (This currently homeless entity, significantly, is chaired by former Liberal PM and warmonger John Howard and includes Tony Abbott on its board.)

The Australian National University's rejection of the Centre, he rants hysterically, "has shown us beyond doubt how illiberal, intolerant and anti-Western our big public universities have become... Western civilisation has a huge number of enemies at universities. Ramsey looks like a businessman preparing for a Rotary Club meeting when actually he has been invited to a knife fight. (Our universities are no longer seeking the truth, 7/6/18)

However, as Sheridan has earlier admitted, he and his bestie, Abbott, have been veritable purveyors of illiberality, intolerance and wilful ignorance since their own university days in the 70s: 

"No doubt the silliest thing we did at the [Australian Union of Students] conference was to attend a Palestinian film night. Because AUS was spending our money, we wanted to assert... our right to be there. So we heckled the film a bit." (The Tony that I - and others - remember was never violent at uni, The Australian, 12/9/12. See my 13/9/12 post Greg & Tony Do Monash 1.)

So instead of viewing the film with open minds and maybe learning something new, the pair attended with only one aim in mind - to prevent others from learning about Palestine. Apart from any other concerns (such as the Centre's potential for acting as a Trojan horse for the whitewashing and/or celebration of European/US imperial and colonial crimes, to take but one example), our universities are right to be wary of anything touted by such arch hypocrites as Sheridan and Abbott.

Salivating Zionists

John Howard responds to Kevin Rudd (see my 21/3/18 post More Fool He) in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald:

"The statement of [Rudd's] about the existence of WMDs, to which I... have most frequently referred over the years was contained in a speech he delivered to the State Zionist Council of Victoria on October 15, 2002. In it he asserted that it was 'an empirical fact' that Iraq possessed WMDs. He based his assertion not on intelligence material, but on a bulletin from the Federation of American Scientists, which listed Iraq among a number of states in possession of chemical and biological weapons and with the capacity to develop a nuclear program."

More Fool He

Kevin Rudd in today's Sydney Morning Herald:

"In virtually every speech Howard has given on Iraq since 2003, he has also sought to justify his decision to go to war on the grounds that I, too, had said at the time that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. As in fact had most people. But there is a small problem with this argument. Like most Australians then, I had no access to intelligence material. I accepted the government's claims about the existence of Iraqi WMDs at face value - it didn't cross my mind that Howard would flagrantly misrepresent its content." (Monstrous strategic mistake that took us to war in Iraq)

It didn't cross his mind? Really? Well, I never...

Give Me the Sand Any Day

I notice that Bush of Baghdad's Australian poodle, John Howard, is trumpeting the creation of a Centre for Western Civilisation, "[t]he key goal of [which] will be to facilitate the teaching of Western civilisation as a coherent field of study" (Gift from a true champion of Western civilisation, John Howard, The Australian, 14/3/17), and is, moreover, to be the chairman of its board.

'Civilisation' (along with its mate, 'progress') seems to be experiencing something of a revival these days.

It was, of course, under such diverting rubrics as these that the Zionist colonisers of Palestine in the 1920s and 30s, protected by British bayonets, quietly went about preparing for the day when they could snatch Palestine from the hands of its Arab inhabitants.

Many Britons at that time were entranced by such words, and cheered on the Zionist colonial-settler project in their name. But not all.

As one British observer of the Palestinian scene, the Anglican preacher, suffragist and antiwar campaigner Maude Royden (1876-1956), noted in her 1939 book, The Problem of Palestine:

"Before attempting a solution of the Palestinian problem, it is necessary to consider a question which has up to now hardly been raised: it is the question of the meaning of the word 'civilization'.

"Putting aside the promises made by the British to the Arab and to the Jew, putting aside also our right to make some of these promises at all, let us consider the present situation as realists who wish to make the best of a bad business. Englishmen are apt at this point to reflect that, in any case, the Arabs have a great deal to gain by co-operation with the Jews. The Arabs of Palestine are terribly poor. The Jews have brought with them capital, intelligence and a knowledge of Western science which will make much of the fertile places and at least all that can be made of the barren. Moreover they are deeply concerned with all that improves hygiene and are a modern, progressive and enlightened people. If we admit that the Arabs should have been consulted before the promise of a National Home for Jews was made, did we not after all do them a great service when we made it?

"This was, I admit, my own view when I first looked at the problem. I had realized that the old association of ideas by which Palestine and the Jews were one thing in the minds of people brought up on the Bible as I had been was a misleading one. I had grasped the fact that Arabs and Turks were not the same people in spite of their being both Moslems! I had got hold of the fact that the Arabs had been settled in Palestine for thirteen hundred years and were still there, to the extent of over 90% of the population, at the outbreak of war. I was reasonable enough to perceive that, these things being so, it was monstrous of us to have given away their land to the Jews (who had left it 2,000 years ago) without even going through the form of consulting them first.

"I still believed that we had done them a service, even if unintentionally, and that they were, if within their rights resenting it, foolish and shortsighted to do so.

"My position I believe to be that of a large number of my fellow-countrymen and women. It is based on the assumption that the Jews are offering to the Arabs in Palestine 'a higher civilization'.

"What is meant by this phrase? I find that, unconsciously, one is apt to mean by it 'a higher material standard of life'. This phrase (omitting the word 'material') is quoted in the Woodhead Commission Report from a memorandum 'received from a Jewish source'. The memorandum speaks of 'the two different standards of life' in Palestine; 'that of the bulk of the Arab population and the higher one introduced by Jewish... settlers'. The reference is to 'education and standards of life'.

"Before assuming that the Arabs owe gratitude to the Jews for their efforts to raise the Arab standard of life, it necessary to ask whether the civilization which is based on a simple way of living, on a rural foundation, sustained by agriculture and other farming, is necessarily a lower one than that which is urban, commercial and industrial. This question does not seem to have been put; yet it is worth putting. The advantages of Jewish immigration to Palestinian Arabs may then be seen in a different night."

Royden instances the case of the Zionist-conceived and -built city of Tel-Aviv, just to the north of the ancient Arab port city of Jaffa:

"In Palestine [the Jews] have... created Tel-Aviv on a piece of sand. Both the Royal and the Woodhead Commissioners describe this last feat as 'startling', and certainly it is so. Here is a considerable town, full of life and activity and as purely Jewish as a town can be. It is building schools, houses and places of business, and it is already a port of importance."

Be that as it may, she asks rhetorically, "Is a piece of sand such a frightful spectacle?"

And adds:

"There are some who prefer it to Brighton, just as there are many to whom Brighton is a delight and the seashore a horror unless it be lined with piers and esplanades.

"We may enjoy our own preference without condemning the other. When, however, the urbanized and industrialized civilization is described as the 'higher' one, and the farmer and peasant expected to be grateful to those who thrust it upon him, we are entitled to claim that, on the contrary, he has a right to prefer his own." (pp 108-16)

Such critical thinking, however, would be lost on Howard, with his mindless prattle about "the Judeo-Christian ethic" and Australia's "deep-seated tolerance towards people of different backgrounds."

Greg Sheridan: Master Satirist

This is satire, right?:

"Listening to Tony Blair's epic press conference and John Howard's shorter but no less commanding performance, I was struck by just what master politicians these two men were, and how far they tower over all their successors from both sides of politics in either country. Thirteen years after the events, these two giants are still masters of all the detail, picking their way through the fog of war in real time." (Giants show the path to truth in fog of war, The Australian, 8/7/16)

"Blair's memo to Bush that 'we will be with you, whatever' was not a blank cheque to go to war... but a commitment that Britain would work with Washington to solve the problem of Iraq." (ibid)

"Islamic State emerged out of Syria, a collapsed nation in which the West did not intervene at all." (ibid)

Paying the Price?

Hm...

"Iran's police chief has said his country had demanded the extradition of Man Haron Monis, the Sydney hostage taker, 14 years ago over charges of fraud, but the request was rejected by the Australian authorities... In 1996, Monis established a travel agency, but took his clients' money and fled, Iran's police chief, General Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam, told the country's official IRNA news agency on Tuesday. Australia accepted him as a refugee around that time. The police chief said Iran tried to have Monis extradited from Australia in 2000, but that it did not happen because Tehran and Canberra did not have an extradition agreement." (Iran: Extradition of Sydney attacker refused, aljazeera.com, 17/12/14)

Given that Iran has been under one form or another of USraeli-initiated sanction since the Islamic Revolution of 1979...

Given Australia's traditional practice of subcontracting our Middle East policy to USrael...

Given that Iran's extradition request came on John (Jerusalem Prize) Howard's watch (PM:1996-2007)...

&

Given that then immigration minister Philip Ruddock (IM: 1996-2003) so loved Israel that he agreed to take in 200 members of its rollicking puppet South Lebanon Army (SLA) in 2000/01...*

It beggars belief that the mere absence of an agreement with the Iranians was the sole reason for not extraditing Monis, especially in light of Ruddock's own words: "The only exception [to deporting a recognised refugee] would be if it were proved that the refugee status had been obtained by fraud." (Philip Ruddock: Psychological problems part of humanitarian refugee intake, David Wroe, Sydney Morning Herald, 16/12/14)

The question arises, then: Was Man Haron Monis the price we had to pay for keeping Iran at arm's length to better please our USraeli mates?

[*See my 30/5/13 post Israel Gets What Israel Wants.]

Fools Rush In

A timely letter from Alison Broinowski*:

"Australia's absurd euphemism's for for war, such as 'forceful combat', are familiar from Howard-speak in 2003. Another familiar trick is producing a formal invitation. In the 1960s we put advisers first, then troops into Vietnam, and Menzies eventually extracted from Saigon a letter inviting them. If our Prime Minister now has an invitation from Baghdad that legitimises our presence, let him table it in parliament, together with his response ('Australia can't fight in Iraq without a resolution, says PM', September 17). But if Australia is also to attack Syria, pursuing Islamic State perhaps, what invitation will he produce for that? Unless we have a UN Security Council resolution for this war, and unless we believe there is an imminent threat to Australia, our involvement is illegal. Other countries know this and fear to tread where Australia rushes in." (Sydney Morning Herald, 18/9/14)

[*See my 28/7/10 post 'A Mature Democracy'?]

John Howard: Iraq Believer, Climate Change Sceptic

Funny, isn't it, how some people can be absolutely certain about the rectitude of their involvement in a course of action based on nothing but the proverbial tissue of lies, but be completely overcome by doubt in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence?

Take former PM John Howard, for example. He's been out of office now since 2007, swanning around the globe, doing gig after gig at the Australian taxpayers' expense.

He's had about 6 years now to think about the wisdom of his decision to involve Australia in the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, surely one of the dodgiest (and most destructive) wars of all times; 6 years in which to read what's been written on the subject and maybe revise his views on it.

And yet, he is as certain today as he was over 10 years ago that his decision to join the Coalition of the Willies was the right one:

"It remains my conviction... that it was right [to invade Iraq] because it was in Australia's national interests, and the removal of Saddam's regime provided the Iraqi people with the opportunities for freedom not otherwise in prospect." (Speech to the Lowy Institute, April, 2013)

When it comes to climate change, however, and the firm conviction of thousands of climate scientists that we're burning the toast, the man's a complete sceptic:

"You can never be absolutely certain that all the science is in." (Global warming exaggerated, former PM John Howard says, The Australian, 6/11/13)

Funny man, John Howard.

Israel Gets What Israel Wants

Remember John Howard's former immigration minister/attorney-general, Philip Ruddock?

Happily, he's just an opposition backbencher these days and we don't get to hear much from him anymore.

Lately, however, he's popped up in federal parliament sick with worry that Australia's bloated intelligence agencies are being starved of funds by the government.

But that's not why I'm on his case right now. The thing is, I just couldn't help noticing the following words in his speech on the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence & Security's latest Annual Report of Activities:

"I read about what is happening in Syria and the reports of Australians abroad engaged in activities in that region. In some cases their work is said to be humanitarian, but in others the reporting suggests that they are active participants. These are people who can come back to Australia after they have been trained in organisations that ought to be of considerable concern to us." (ruddockmp.com.au)

It's strange how selective such concerns can be.

Ruddock apparently had no such concerns when tapped on the shoulder by the Israelis sometime in 2000/2001 and asked to relieve them of the burden of around 200 members of the South Lebanese Army (SLA), the puppet militia who'd followed their masters back into Israel following the Israeli  retreat from occupied south Lebanon in 2000.

As non-Jews (Maronite Christians actually) in a 'Jewish' state, they were surplus to requirements, and, having passed their use-by date, just had to go... somewhere... anywhere.

But where? No problem. Where else but good old Australia?

As you know, when it comes to Israel, Australian governments are the softest of soft touches, and none more so, arguably, than that of John Howard. Sure, you've all heard Howard's 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstance in which they come', but hey, for Israel... anything!

Still, you might have thought that the SLA's experience in terrorising Shia villages and Palestinian refugees in south Lebanon, and their expertise in attaching electric wires to the fingertips, tongues and genitals of anyone unfortunate enough to fall into their clutches, would have given Ruddock and his mates pause. But no, like Lola, Israel always gets what Israel wants.

'Honest' John

John Howard in his April 9, 2013 speech to the Lowy Institute:

"I never believed that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks nor did president Bush..."

George Bush in his May 1, 2003 announcement that major combat operations in Iraq have ended:

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 - and still goes on. That terrible morning, nineteen evil men - the shock troops of a hateful ideology - gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America'. By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed... The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain. No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." (The Iraq Papers, edited by Ehrenberg, McSherry, Sanchez & Sayej, 2010, p 176)

Stand By Your Man

OK, so John Howard read federal parliament's report - Intelligence on Iraq's WMD - which showed that a sanctions-weakened Iraq was about as much of a threat to world peace as Monaco, and simply ignored its findings. So why then did he take us to war against Iraq in 2003?

Apart from all the bull in Howard's Lowy Institute speech about everybody, but everybody, at the time having a near gospel belief that Saddam was such a mean and ornery fella he just had to have a stash of WMDs under his bed (and the more so for saying he didn't) and you're left with the odd statement or two that tells us why we really went in. Here they are in chronological order:

"[C]entral to a proper understanding of why the US acted as she did over Iraq, and the implications that had for a close ally such as Australia, is to recognise [her] vulnerability [to more terrorist attacks]."

"Australia's decision to join the coalition in Iraq was a product both of our belief at the time that Iraq had WMD, and the nature of our relationship and alliance with the US."

"Although the legal justification for the action taken against Iraq was based on her cumulative non-compliance with UNSC resolutions, and a properly grounded belief that Saddam possessed WMDs, a powerful element in our decision to join the Americans was, of course, the depth and character of our relationship with the US. Australia had invoked ANZUS in the days following 9/11. We had readily joined the coalition in Afghanistan; Australia had suffered the brutality of Islamic terrorism in Bali. There was a sense then that a common way of life was under threat. At that time, and in those circumstances, and given our shared history and values, I judged that, ultimately, it was in our national interest to stand beside the Americans."

Got the picture? When you're in love, you stand by your man, OK? It's really that simple(-minded). End of story.

Now, having definitively solved that little mystery, there are other revealing threads in his speech worth following up.

For example, in addition to all the ducking and weaving on WMDs, Howard gleefully invokes the spectre of Osama bin Laden and the Islamo-fascist hordes in blithe disregard for bin Laden having long ago written Saddam off as a "socialist infidel."*

As much as he protests, "I never believed that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks nor did president Bush or, to my knowledge, Tony Blair. Such a claim never formed part of the public case put by the Howard government for our Iraqi involvement," Howard flogs the 9/11 attacks for all they're worth:

"Americans thought that their country would be attacked by terrorists again, and soon. To many in the US why wouldn't a rogue state like Iraq supply dangerous weapons to terrorist groups?"

Bringing it closer to home, he invokes the bomb in our own backyard - Bali - and the prospect of "home-grown threats to our peaceful society," conjuring nightmare visions of flinty-eyed, bearded men in flowing white robes bearing nuclear/chemical/biological suitcase bombs, personally packed by a certain "loathsome dictator" who rules over an "outlaw regime/rogue state," and who will go to any lengths to kick down our white picket fences and trample all over our carefully manicured lawns. And who, of course, has more WMDs - gospel! - than you can shake a stick at.

But what the bugger doesn't let on is that Americans didn't automaticaly think of Iraq after 9/11. They had to be 'taught' to think about it. They had to be 'educated'. Enter the neocons:

"The 'Get Iraq' campaign... started within days of the September bombings... It emerged first and particularly from pro-Israel hard-liners in the Pentagon such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and adviser Richard Perle, but also from hard-line neoconservatives, and some journalists and congressmen. Soon it became clear that many, although not all, were in the group that is commonly called in diplomatic and political circles the 'Israel-firsters', meaning that they would always put Israeli policy, or even their perception of it, above anything else." (Pro-Israeli, anti-Arab campaigns could isolate America, Georgie Anne Geyer, uexpress.com, 25/10/01)

Of course, don't expect Howard to go there.

Finally, some other gems... very John Howard:

"The claims of some that life in Iraq was better under Saddam than it has been since, defy belief."

The claims of some? Iraqis perhaps? But then again, what would they know?

"To have tried, albeit unsuccessfully, for a new [UN] resolution added weight to the moral and political case being built for a military operation."

LOL, even if the UN won't give you the green light you need, you're still ahead merely for trying!

"It was inevitable that after Saddam had been toppled a degree of revenge would be exacted, but a stronger security presence would have constrained this."

Inevitable, eh? You mean Rumsfeld didn't really have to send in the likes of Colonel James Steele, "a US veteran of of the 'dirty wars' in Central America to oversee sectarian police commando units in Iraq that set up detention and torture centres... [conducting] some of the worst acts of torture during the US occupation and [accelerating] the country's descent into full-scale civil war"?**

"[T]he removal of Saddam's regime provided the Iraqi people with opportunities for freedom not otherwise in prospect."

What is it with these born-to-rule bastards? Remember Abbott's campaign slogan - 'Hope, Reward, Opportunity'? As the experience of Iraq should tell us, when a guy in a suit starts banging on about opportunities it's time to batten down the hatches.

[*Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, ed by Bruce Lawrence, 2005, p 184; ** Iraq - searching for Steele, Foreign Correspondent, 2/4/13]

Public Servant Blows Whistle on John Howard

"After the fall of Saddam, and when it became apparent that stockpiles of WMDs had - to me unexpectedly - not been found in Iraq, it was all too easy for certain people... to begin claiming that Australia had gone to war based on a 'lie'. That claim is the most notorious one of all about the conduct of my government, and of others, and merits the most emphatic rejection. Not only does it impugn the integrity of the decision-making process at the highest level, but also the professionalism of intelligence agencies here and elsewhere. Some of their key assessments proved to be wrong, but that is a world away from those assessments being the product of deceit and/or political manipulation. In Australia, there was a parliamentary inquiry... which canvassed the pre-war intelligence. In its submission to the former, [the Office of National Assessment] ONA said, 'ONA said in a report of 31 January 2003 that there is a wealth of intelligence on Saddam's WMDs activities, but it paints a circumstantial picture that is conclusive overall rather than resting on a single piece of irrefutable evidence'. The Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO) said in its submission to the same inquiry 'Iraq probably retained a WMD capability - even if that capability had been degraded over time. DIO also assessed that Iraq maintained both an intent and capability to recommence a wider program should circumstances permit it to do so'." (From John Howard's speech to the Lowy Institute, as posted on the Sydney Morning Herald's website under the heading: 'We were right to invade Iraq' - John Howard, 9/4/13)

In the light of former prime minister Howard's reference above to an Australian parliamentary inquiry into Iraq's alleged WMDs, incorporating input from the DIO and the ONA, every Australian should take the time to read and ponder the implications of the following 'opinion piece' - Howard ignored official advice on Iraq's weapons & chose war - in today's Fairfax papers - although why it appeared in the opinion pages when it should have been on page one is a mystery I cannot even begin to fathom. The author, Margaret Swieringa, a retired public servant, is, it would appear, just the whistleblower we had to have:

"Former prime minister John Howard's justification this week on why we went to war against Iraq in 2003 obfuscates some issues.

"I was the secretary to the federal parliamentary intelligence committee from 2002 until 2007. It was then called the ASIO, ASIS & Defence Signals Directorate committee - which drafted the report Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Howard refers to this committee in his speech justifying our involvement in the war.  [See above.]

 "The reason why there was so much argument about the existence of such weapons before the war in Iraq 10 years ago was that to go to war on any other pretext would have been a breach of international law. As Howard said at the time: 'I couldn't justify on its own a military invasion of Iraq to change the regime. I've never advocated that. Central to the threat is Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons and its pursuit of nuclear capability'.

"So the question is what the government knew or was told about that capability and whether the government 'lied' about the danger that Iraq posed. At the time, Howard and his ministers asserted that the threat to the world from Iraq's WMD was both great and immediate. On February 4, 2003, he said Saddam Hussein had an 'arsenal' and a 'stockpile' and the 'illegal importation of proscribed goods ha[s] increased dramatically in the past few years'. 'Iraq had a massive program for developing offensive biological weapons - one of the largest and most advanced in the world'. On March 18, 2003, foreign minister Alexander Downer told the House of Representatives: 'The strategy of containment [UN sanctions] simply has not worked and now poses an unacceptable risk'. In his speeches at the time, Howard said: 'Iraq has a usable chemical and biological weapons capability which has included recent production of chemical and biological agents; Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons. All key aspects - research and development, production and weaponisation - of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program are active and most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War in 1991'.

"None of the government's arguments were supported by the intelligence presented to it by its own agencies. None of these arguments were true. Howard this week quoted the findings of the parliamentary inquiry, but his quotation is selective to the point of being misleading.

"What was the nature of the intelligence on Iraq's WMD provided to the government? The parliamentary inquiry reported on the intelligence in detail. It gathered information from the Defence Intelligence Organisation and the Office of National Assessment. It said:

1. The scale of threat from Iraq's WMD was less than it had been a decade earlier.
2. Under sanctions that prevailed at the time, Iraq's military capability remained limited and the country's infrastructure was still in decline.
3. The nuclear program was unlikely to be far advanced. Iraq was unlikely to have obtained fissile material.
4. Iraq had no ballistic missiles that could reach the US. Most if not all of the few SCUDS that were hidden away were likely to be in poor condition.
5. There was no known chemical weapons production.
6. There was no specific evidence of resumed biological weapons production.
7. There was no known biological weapons testing or evaluation since 1991.
8. There was no known Iraq offensive research since 1991.
9. Iraq did not have nuclear weapons.
10. There was no evidence that chemical weapon warheads for Al Samoud or other ballistic missiles had been developed.
11. No intelligence had accurately pointed to the location of WMD.

"There were minor qualifications to this somewhat emphatic picture. It found there was a limited stockpile of chemical weapon agents, possibly stored in dual-use or industrial facilities. Although there was no evidence that it had done so, Iraq had the capacity to restart its chemical weapons program in weeks and to manufacture in months.

"The committee concluded the 'case made by the government was that Iraq possessed WMD in large quantities and posed a grave and unacceptable threat to the region and the world, particularly as there was a danger that Iraq's WMD might be passed to terrorist organisations. This is not the picture that emerges from an examination of all the assessments provided to the committee by Australia's two analytical agencies'. Howard would claim, no doubt, that he took his views from overseas dossiers. But all that intelligence was considered by Australian agencies when forming their views. They knew, too, of the disputes and arguments within British and US intelligence agencies. Moreover, Australian agencies as well as the British and US intelligence agencies also knew the so-called 'surge of new intelligence' after September 2002 relied almost exclusively on one or two unreliable and self-serving individuals. They knew that Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel Hassan al-Majid, who had defected in 1995, had told Western agencies the nuclear program in Iraq had failed, chemical and biological programs had been dismantled and weapons destroyed.

"There are none so blind who will not see."

PS (13/4/13): Last time I looked, Swieringa's piece had attracted 470 comments, and an accompanying poll, asking whether readers thought Howard was 'lying about the reasons for going to war in Iraq',  had attracted over 18, 555 votes, 93% in agreement.

Australia Needs to Talk About Iraq

Below I've posted an important and eloquent appeal by Dr. Sue Wareham, secretary of the Campaign for an Iraq War Inquiry. It was published in The Age of February 14, 2013 under the title: For democracy's sake, let's talk about our war in Iraq:

"The largest anti-war demonstration in Australian history began 10 years ago today - February 14, 2003. Millions of people protested worldwide, in about 800 cities - including in Australia, Britain, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, the United States, Canada, South Africa, Syria, India, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and even McMurdo Station in Antarctica.

"In Melbourne more than 100,000 people protested. They clogged Swanston Street for more than three hours, stretching all the way from the State Library down to Federation Square, demanding Australia not follow US President George Bush into war, and that we must allow UN weapons inspectors to do their work.

"Even though globally millions marched, their collective will was ignored, and a tragedy of monstrous proportions unfolded in Iraq. As predicted by many people at the time, the invasion of Iraq was a humanitarian, legal, political and strategic disaster. It left a trail of death and destruction and millions of refugees. It undermined the role of international law and strengthened terrorism. Australia's role in the war raised serious questions of government honesty and accountability. If we do not learn lessons from this episode, we are at risk of engaging in equally ill-founded wars in the future.

"And now, ten years later, we need to ask ourselves how the Australian government was able to ignore the public expression of outrage about its intentions. The key lesson we must learn is to ensure that Australian governments can never again commit our forces on the decision of a leader in the face of opposition from millions of Australian citizens, without even our Parliament being consulted. Democracy shouldn't work like that.

"The tenth anniversary of the largest outpouring of anti-war protest this country has ever seen is a fitting occasion for an inquiry into the Iraq War.

"The former secretary of the Department of Defence, Paul Barrett, along with former PM Malcolm Fraser, former chief of the Australian Defence Force, General Peter Gration and many other distinguished Australians have recently formed a campaign for an Iraq War inquiry to facilitate a national conversation about the big questions of how and why the Howard government committed Australian military personnel to invade Iraq in 2003. Their efforts are supported by senior Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Maddox.

"Britain and the Netherlands have both conducted such inquiries, revealing much that was hidden in those countries' Iraq War decision-making. Of course, the government and opposition will resist, counting on the resignation many felt for the past decade to shield them from public pressure. But the demand for an inquiry into what happened ten years ago can sow the seeds for a democratic capacity to ensure it never happens again.

"Instead of simply looking back in horror at how Australia became embroiled in such an ill-conceived and catastrophic conflict, the inquiry would seek to identify the steps that led to Australia participating in the invasion of Iraq in order to understand the lessons to be learnt and how to ensure we follow better procedures in the future.

"The inclusion of our parliament in any decision that puts our troops, and millions of civilians, in harm's way would be a good start. Going to war is one of the biggest steps any country can take and yet John Howard has never been properly called to account for his decision in 2003. Those who, with him, thought it was the right decision at the time, should welcome and support an inquiry. As the war has been severely criticised, its proponents should have the opportunity to defend their actions and views.

"In these days of political disengagement, an inquiry into Australia's involvement in Iraq would provide a powerful route to begin overcoming the sense of powerlessness so many people felt in the face of the travesty of democratic decision-making a decade ago. It is an episode from which we must learn, lest we repeat the mistakes."

[See my 28/7/10 post 'A Mature Democracy'?]

Touche!

"John Howard has re-entered the culture wars, describing the Gillard government's national [F-10] school history curriculum as 'unbalanced, lacking in priorities and quite bizarre,' and accusing it of marginalising the Judeo-Christian ethic and purging British history." (Howard revives history wars, Dennis Shanahan, The Australian, 28/9/12)

 "This so-called Judeo-Christian ethic is bunkum. The West owes its greatness to the Greeks and Romans, with some help from the Arabs and Chinese. John Howard gets an F for history." (Michael Wong, Norman Park, QLD, The Australian, 29/9/12)

PS 1/10/12: This came in today's Australian. It's extraordinary the way the reappearance of John Howard can generate such hard-ons:

"The proposed national history curriculum is typical of the hidden horrors that an elite, clinging to the coat-tails of a naive Labor government, can inflict on us. John Howard has ensured that the proposal will not fly under the radar to carpet-bomb our educational institutions with leftist theories... One giveaway is the proposal that Australia be studied as a new-world settler society. Settler is a term to be uttered through gritted teeth. If the curriculum is adopted, all those Australians who have worked for generations in war and peace to build a nation reflecting man's highest ideals will have been snookered. The effrontery of the devisers is breathtaking but they won't get away with it." (Peter Edgar, Garran, ACT)

The Good Old Days

Where would the letters pages of our papers be without the wit and wisdom of venerable correspondents such as George Fishman, Vaucluse, NSW?

The re-emergence of Dear Leader John Winston Howard on the public stage appears to have awakened a flickering flame in the old codger:

"Pity it's taken the Queen of England to recognise John Howard's great service to Australia." The Australian, 3/1/12

Remember John Howard? Iraq? The glory days? George sure does. Those were the days, my friend:

"John Howard has confirmed the superman status conferred on him by George W Bush. He can see as far through a brick wall as anybody. By signing up for the Coalition of the Willing he garnered valuable brownie points with George Bush and Tony Blair but was canny enough to being our troops home before the real war in Iraq, the war of peace, got under way." (Sydney Morning Herald, 10/7/03)

"Those in the US Administration, notably Colin Powell and the State Department, who live in the past and believe that by making concessions to countries that harbour terrorism the problem will go away, must yield to so-called neoconservatives who live in the real world and are prepared to stand and fight to bring an end to terrorism." (SMH, 2/1/04)

"The casualties of the war in Iraq are high but those in Australia and elsewhere calling for a 'cut and run' policy should get some perspective. A recently released study by the WHO and the World Bank showed that each year about 1.2 million people die as a result of road accidents worldwide, yet there are no plans to abandon the use of motor cars." (SMH, 9/4/04)

Brings tears to the eyes, doesn't it?